KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 467/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 17..3..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR     : MEMBER

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,         : APPELLANTS

    Represented by its Secretary,

    KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

    Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst.Executive Engineer,

     Electrical Major Section,

     (renamed as Electrical Sub Division)

     Udiyankulangara, Trivandrum District.

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

           Vs.

Madavi Amma,                                   : RESPONDENT

Usha Nivas, Udiyankulangara,

Arayoor.P.O.,

Neyyattinkara,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.R.Jagadishkumar)

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR     : MEMBER

            The opposite parties in OP.282/99 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram are the  appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to cancel Ext.P1 and P2 invoices issued to the complainant.

          2.  The case of the complainant before the Forum is that she is a consumer of the opposite parties and that she wasdirected to pay a sum of Rs.14375/- and again another bill for Rs.13286/- failing which the service was liable to be disconnected.  The complainant has submitted that the bills were issued in the name of her husband on the alleged ground that a pumpset was installed and electric connection was obtained from consumer No,1164 .  It is her case that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the said bills.

          3. The opposite parties filed version contending that a complaint was received by the Deputy Chief Engineer that unauthorised extension of electric connection was taken to a pump set in the nearby property from the complainant’s premises and that on an inspection conducted by the 2^nd opposite party it was found that the complainant had done so and hence a notice was issued to remove the unauthorized extension and a bill for Rs.14375/- was issued.   It was also submitted that on an appeal filed by one Mr.Krishna Pillai the bill was reduced to Rs.13286/- and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount.  Submitting there was no deficiency in service,  the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 on her side.  On the side of the opposite parties the 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ext.D1  to D6 were marked.  It was based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.

          5. Heard both sides.

          6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable.  It is his very case that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complainant and that the connection was not transferred in her name in the records.  It is also argued by the learned counsel that as per the inspection, the complaint  to the Deputy Chief Engineer of the opposite parties was found to be correct and hence Ext.B3 notice was issued which was later reduced to Rs.13286/-.  It is also his case that it was on the clear cut proof that a ½ HP pump set was connected by crossing the property and hence the bill was liable to be paid  by the complainant.

          7. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below.  He has argued before us that there was no evidence for the opposite parties to substantiate their case that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions by connecting a ½ HP pump set in the nearby property.  It is also his case that the bill was issued based on presumptions and assumptions and also to wreak vengeance on the complainant in not allowing to draw a line through her property for giving connection to another person.  The learned counsel advanced the further contention that the opposite parties had issued the bill without any basis and hence the order of the Forum below is to be upheld and the appeal dismissed with compensatory costs.

          8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, respondent and also on perusing the records we find that the opposite parties had issued a bill as Ext.P1 on the basis  of a complaint received by the Deputy chief Engineer and the subsequent inspection by the 2^nd opposite party.  the opposite parties would also say that the bill  was revised to Rs.13286/- and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount.  If that  be so why the opposite parties had failed to produce the inspection report and why they failed in examining the person who prepared the said report.  Mere statement that there was unauthorised extension of electricity cannot ipso facto’ prove the case of the opposite parties that there was unauthorised extension of electricity by the complainant to the near by property.  A bill can be raised only on the basis of sufficient grounds and those grounds are to be proved before the Forum by supporting documents. In the instant case we find that apart from the statement that there was extension of electricity and that there was a complaint to  a Deputy chief Engineer and further that the 2^nd opposite party had inspected premises and found the complaint to be correct there are no acceptable and cogent grounds to support the said pleadings.  We find that the order of the Forum below is well founded and the evidence and conclusions do not need any interference.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed.  Thereby the order dated 27.2.99 of CDRF Thiruvananthapuram in OP 282/99 is confirmed.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                   S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR             : MEMBER

                   JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

ps